How much should we consider the role of moral luck?

Nov 19, 2025

Guest

David Enoch

In this discussion, Matthew Taylor, Chief Executive of the NHS Confederation, highlights how upbringing influences moral responsibility. Sonia Sodha and Inaya Folarin-Iman debate the interplay between agency and circumstance. Kirsty Brimelow sheds light on how mitigating factors are considered in legal contexts. Susan Blackmore challenges the notion of free will, advocating for rehabilitation in law, while David Enoch argues against moral luck's significance. The panel navigates the complex landscape of moral judgments, responsibility, and the impact of luck in our lives.

Ask episode

AI Snips

Chapters

Books

Transcript

Episode notes

INSIGHT

Moral Luck Shapes Judgement

Moral luck covers genetics, upbringing, circumstances and random outcomes that shape actions and judgments.
The episode asks how much luck should affect blame, responsibility and our understanding of agency.

ANECDOTE

Lawyer Sees Luck In Clients' Lives

Kirsty Brimelow describes routinely seeing defendants whose circumstances made their crimes far more likely.
She says law already factors in luck at charging and sentencing stages to reflect real-world harms.

ANECDOTE

Detective's Courtroom Frustrations

Peter Bleksley recalls many mitigation pleas that mismatched the reality he found at scenes.
As a detective he focused on investigating crimes and locking up offenders rather than seeking sympathy for them.

Get the Snipd Podcast app to discover more snips from this episode

Get the app

The Channel 4 documentary, ‘Hitler's DNA: Blueprint of a Dictator’ has carried out a controversial genetic analysis of the Nazi leader. The test shows "very high" scores - in the top 1% - for a predisposition to autism, schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. This not a diagnosis, however, and there have been concerns about whether such speculation stigmatises these conditions.

While we shouldn’t seek to explain a person’s moral character and actions simply through genetics, there are many other aspects of our lives we can’t control, and which can nevertheless influence our behaviour and the judgements of others. These, include our upbringing and the circumstances we happen to be placed in (war, oppression, abuse) as well as the outcome of our actions (e.g. whether someone happens get away drink-driving, or not). If this is all a question of moral luck, how much should it be taken into consideration in our judgments of others? And where does that leave human agency, responsibility and culpability?

One view is that moral blame should be based solely on someone’s intentions and the choices they make. Moral responsibility, it’s argued, rests on rational will, and unlucky life chances should not excuse bad or criminal behaviour. However, in the criminal justice system, mitigating circumstances, while not excusing bad behaviour, are presented to reduce the severity of a person's culpability.

How do we untangle what is in someone’s control, and what is a matter of luck, when it comes to the combinations of nature and nurture that make up the people we are? If we focus too much the things we can’t control, would we ever be able to make any moral judgments at all? Or should we think more about the presence of moral luck in our everyday lives and work harder to understand rather than blame?

Chair: Michael Buerk Panel: Matthew Taylor, Sonia Sodha, Jonathan Sumption and Inaya, Folarin-Iman. Witnesses: Kirsty Brimelow, Peter Bleksley, Susan Blackmore and David Enoch. Producer: Dan Tierney